Senate of the day: Western Australia

Western Australia has produced the most consistent Senate results of any state in the modern era of six-seat half-Senate elections, but there at times been talk of Labor facing an unprecedented disaster this time around.

Share

Western Australia has produced variations on the same result since the first six-seat half-Senate election in 1990: three seats for the Liberals, two for Labor and one for either the Greens or the Democrats. This reflects the fact that Labor has consistently been too weak to win a third seat, but never quite so weak that it was unable to deliver enough preferences to the Greens or Democrats to win them a seat. The state joined Tasmania in being a cradle of green politics, in large part due to the election in 1984 of Jo Vallentine as part of the short-lived Nuclear Disarmament Party (whose narrowly unsuccessful candidate in New South Wales was Peter Garrett). The profile Vallentine attained enabled her to win re-election as an independent at the 1987 double dissolution and as the candidate of the newly founded Greens WA in 1990, and their candidate Dee Margetts likewise outpolled a weakly performing Australian Democrats to win the final seat in 1993.

The Democrats vote surged over subsequent elections, progressively squeezing out Vallentine’s successor Christabel Chamarette in 1996 and Dee Margetts in 1998, while Labor’s direction of preferences to the Democrats ahead of the Greens won them one last victory in 2001. One Nation took a large bite out of the Liberal vote in 1998 and 2001, but on each occasion the early exclusion of the third Labor candidate left Labor, Democrats and Greens preferences deciding the final seat in favour of the Liberals. With the collapse of the Democrats in 2004, the three subsequent elections have followed the same pattern in delivering a clear three quotas to Liberal and two to Labor, with the final seat going to the Greens with help from Labor’s surplus. Their winning candidates were Rachel Siewert in 2004 and 2010, and Scott Ludlam in 2007.

The greatest prospect for a disturbance in the normal pattern is that the combined Labor and Greens vote falls substantially below three quotas, from its 2010 base of 3.05. The nightmare scenario for Labor in that circumstance would be winning only win seat, with the second left seat going to the Greeens and the other four to parties of the right. One possibility than then emerges is that the Nationals enter contention by absorbing a Liberal surplus and the vote of various right-wing minor parties together with that of Wikileaks, which has contentiously favoured them ahead of both Labor and the Greens. Critics of that decision include Christine Assange, the highly vocal mother of Julian, who has said she would vote for Scott Ludlam, a noted parliamentary champion of her son’s cause. There’s also a mathematical possibility that Wikileaks’ preference deals could indeed pay off for their candidate, Suresh Rajan, who would stand to absorb most of the micro-party vote in a four-way contest with the Nationals, the Greens and Labor, including such unlikely sources as Family First and the Clive Palmer and Bob Katter parties.

The Labor ticket is headed by debut entrant Joe Bullock, state president and former state secretary of the Right faction Shop Distributive and Allied Employees Association. Bullock attained the position with the factional muscle of his own union together with that of the Left faction United Voice, part of a deal in which the nominee of the latter, Sue Lines, filled the casual vacancy created by the retirement earlier this year of Chris Evans. In doing so he effectively displaced from the Senate ticket his factional colleague Mark Bishop, who was his predecessor as SDA state secretary, and had the other incumbent, Louise Pratt, demoted from her number one position at the 2007 election. With suggestions circulating that Labor’s malaise in Western Australia might reduce it to a solitary seat at the election, the ordering of the top two positions was of greater than usual consequence, and the awarding of the only secure position to a factional heavyweight was widely criticised.

Louise Pratt entered politics as a member of the state’s upper house in 2001, having previously worked as an electorate officer to Carmen Lawrence and achieved prominence in Perth’s gay community. Her preselection for the Senate at the 2007 election was achieved with backing from the Left faction Australian Manufacturing Workers Union and its powerful state secretary, the late Jock Ferguson, which had withdrawn support from incumbent Ruth Webber following complicated preselection disputes ahead of the 2005 state election, with the effect that Webber had to settle for the losing number three position. Pratt won backing from an alliance of Left unions and the New Right, through a deal in which her vacant state seat went to Vietnamese community leader and New Right faction operative Batong Pham. Pratt’s success in securing top place was an early marker of the declining career fortunes of Mark Bishop, who had announced his intention to retire in 2006 before changing his mind after Kevin Rudd assumed the leadership that December. Bishop appeared set to be succeeded by the party’s state secretary Bill Johnston, another member of the SDA Right, who would instead enter state politics in 2008 as the member for Cannington.

Number three on the Labor ticket is Peter Foster, a councillor for the Shire of Ashburton in the state’s north and a prolific Twitterer.

The Liberal ticket is headed by David Johnston, a former state party president who entered parliament from the number two position on the ticket at the 2001 election. Johnston secured the top of the ticket in 2007, reflecting his promotion to the outer ministry portfolio of justice in March 2007. In opposition he was promoted to the shadow cabinet in the resources and energy and tourism portfolios, winning further promotion to defence at the time Malcolm Turnbull assumed the leadership in September 2008. Second on the ticket is Michaelia Cash, who was elected from number three in 2007 and now fills the vacancy higher up the ticket resulting from the retirement after 17 years of Alan Eggleston. Cash was an industrial relations lawyer before entering parliament, and is the daughter of a former Western Australian state MP, George Cash. She had initially been preselected for the all-but-unwinnable fourth position on the ticket, but was elevated to number three after the initial nominee for that position, Mathias Cormann, found a quicker route to the Senate by filling the casual vacancy created by the resignation of Ian Campbell. Cormann had in turn won preselection at the expense of 70-year-old incumbent Ross Lightfoot. Cash’s promotion up the order created an attractive opportunity in the number three position. This has been taken by Linda Reynolds, who was progressively chief-of-staff to former Senator Chris Ellison, a project director with defence company Raytheon, deputy federal director of the Liberal Party, and an adjutant-general with the Australian Army.

Seeking re-election for the Greens is Scott Ludlam, who entered politics at the 2007 election via a position as adviser to the other Greens Senator from Western Australia, Rachel Siewert, and previously with state MP Robin Chapple. Much of the publicity Ludlam has garnered during his term as a Senator involved his advocacy for Julian Assange, so considerable umbrage has been taken at the Wikileaks Party relegating him below Nationals candidate David Wirrpanda on their preference ticket. Wirrpanda is famous throughout the state as a veteran of 227 AFL games with the West Coast Eagles from 1996 to 2009, and was twice featured in a list of the ten most influential Aboriginal Australians in The Bulletin. The Wikileaks Party’s lead candidate is Gerry Georgatos, a campaigner for various causes who fell out with the Greens in 2009 after being eased out as its candidate for a state by-election.

From around the web

39 comments

39 thoughts on “Senate of the day: Western Australia”

Wikileaks is well placed in the group preference distribution to win the seat with a low base of 2-3% from the Greens

It is also one seat that Antony Green is yet to comment on. Antony Green having previously dismissed Wikileaks chances of winning a Senate seat

The Greens vote has slumped from a just under 14% to a predicted 9% Wikileaks hops to pickup the remnants and lions share of the Green vote that has dissipated.

The Greens are under threat from Wikileaks to point where they have actively sort to down play and attack WIkileaka where ever possible. The Greens are spinning the false line that WIkileaks preferences will deliver a seat to the National party, but they have failed to list their percentage estimates that justify this claim.

A number of factors contribute to Wikileaks potential success not the least the 0.5% ATL donkey vote.

The difficulty in knowing exactly where this State is heading is again the impact of Katter and Palmer. If Wikileaks survives them they are in with a real chance that is virtually unstoppable.

Labor is expected to retain two seats and the LNP 3 Their is little to now chance of a fourth seat for the LNP, 2010 was a low ride mark for the ALP

Labor Party would have to fall below 255 to not pickup two seats. 2010 was a low tide and we doubt that the the could go out much more. It certainly would not flow into the LNP bay or esteri. Again this could favour Wikileaks if there is a further drop in ALP support.

The large ticket could help consolidate support for the main players as voters opt to select their preferred Above-the-line-party. It could be a “pox on both your houses” in which Palmer, Katter and Family First play a bigger role than anticipated.

This can also work in Wikileaks favour as word begins to spread as to their chances of real success. If you want to stop the Greens you would vote for Wikileaks

Pundant’s realistic group percentage breakdown is welcomed. It has to be realistic and I suggest readers reflect on the ABC historical summary

I can see them potentially getting 3% The 5% drop in Green support has to go somewhere. The other aspect is the developing or pending war in Syria. Wikileaks would have to be the main anti-war party. How much this pans out depends on how quick Obama moves and the ability of Wikileaks to gain attraction. There is no doubt there is a consiracy to try and down play Wikileaks chances they are getting little to no coverage by the Media and or the ABC. If Family First can attack 2% and Sex Party 4% then Wikileaks is in with a chance.

I have undertaken a rigorous and independent review of each party’s likely success in each of the states senate elections. As I am not a member of any political party, I hope this is a fair and robust assessment.

I use a 1000-repetition monte carlo analysis where each party’s vote randomly varies around a mean, and where preferences are determined as per officially registered tickets. Furthermore, I have baselined my model by ensuring alignment with Antony Green’s senate calculator.

For the “expected” values in WA, I am estimating 42% Liberal, 30% ALP, 11% GRN, 3% Nat. The variation around these expected values is +/-6% for Liberal, +/-4% for ALP, +/-2% for GRN and +/-1% for Nat. This means 86% of the vote is for these four parties.

Additionally, one could expect PUP, SXP, FF, DLP, Shooters, LDP, to all poll 1%+, with the other 17 tickets sharing the balance of the 7% vote. Please tell me where I am wrong with these assessments. (all parties have a +/- variation, proportional to their vote).

From here, it’s easy. Any single set of numbers will affect the order of elimination which will affect who’s elected. So it is appropriate to apply statistical techniques used in industry to conduct monte carlo analysis of a range of options – this will allow us to calculate a statistically significant likelihood of election of each candidate. In 1 minute, I can run 1000 simulations with each simulation equivalent to typing in a full set of numbers into Antony Green’s online senate calculator.

Typing in a single scenario, as anyone knows, can be manipulated and used to suit particular pre-conceived biases and to push a point. Anyway… to the result of my analysis…

On the left, these primaries equate to 2 ALP (90% likely), 1 Green (75% likely), with a 5% chance of a DEM elected and a 1% chance of SXP erected. In summary a 73% chance of an ideological 3-3 split. (my model is also showing a 1% chance of an ideological 4-2 split with 2 ALP and 1 GRN joined by 1 DEM)

On the right, the LNP has a 94% chance of 3 elected with the above votes, and a 5% chance of 4 elected. The balance is 17% KAP, 5% to the No Carbon Tax party and 1% to FF and the Shooters. Those elected will obviously depend on minute variations in vote and order of elimination.

I have run DaW’s WIKI estimation through my model. It is correct that if they poll 2-3% they’d be in with a chance. I can’t see it happening. WA voters will have a record 27 candidates to choose from. As the minor parties will share 10-15% of the vote, I think only KAP and SXP have any chance of getting to as high as this level – most will poll around the 0.5% mark including WIKI. There is no chance that FF will get 2, SXP will get 4 AND the WIKI to get 3 – this would be taking the majority of the other vote within just 3 tickets which is unprecedented.

If anyone wants to suggest alternative numbers, I’m happy to run them through my model.

You have inflated the Green vote significantly. It is reported that the Greens have slumped to less than 9%

Yes you need to start from the 2010 figure and consider historical data. You also need to estimate the support for new players and adjust the support for all others to ensure it tallies to 100%. It is highly unlikely that an existing minor party will increase its support by more than a third or major parties more then the reported swing in the polls There is no way the democrats can be elected. Their vote will be less than 1% and certainly less than SXP, WKP BKP, or PUP

Most of the minor parties have placed the major parties (Including the Greens) last.

Liberal and the ALP will have marginal surpluses if any.

The contest is for the last position. Under a Droop quota the system is not proportional as a party vote can be locked up in the wasted quota. Most likely to be the Greens ALP surplus)

In Western Australia Wikileaks has a very good chance of out polling the Greens from a low base of 2-3%

A realistic achievement when you consider past performances of other well known groups.

Wikileaks is is a threat to the Greens who are not as well placed in preferences. If the Wikileaks secures 50% of the displaced 2010 Green vote than they will win.

Then there is the Bob Katter and Clive Palmer impact. Where will they sit.

This would predominately come from LNP voters. The party to the left of the ballot paper has a 0.5% advantage This should flow to Wikileaks

The religious trinity is more or less the same as in 2010.

In the end it will be the fold up of the minor parties that decides.

Wikileaks is the best option to defeat the Greens in Western Australia and break the wasted quota barrier. It is highly unlikely that the LNP coalition could muster the 53% required to elect 4 positions

2010 was a low tide for the ALP.

Given the Green vote has slumped were do you think it is going. Again many will vote Wikileaks. Add to that the imminent US lead war in Syria on the horizon I do not see the Greens crossing the line if Wikileaks secure 2% or more of the vote.

ps the large number of candidates/groups plays into the hands of Wikileaks as all other less known parties fall below them in the fold up. The more candidates the better off the well known groups are. The only small grouping that is consistent is the Religious trinity. Many of the 2010 Green voters were not wedded to the greens, They did not vote for them because of their policies. As stateed else where it is a choice of a bad lot argument and they parked their vote on the Greens. This group will find a new resting spot in groups such as Wikileaks. Again where has the 5% Green vote swing away gone?

Hi Truth Seeker,
Looking at recent polling for Labor suggests primary vote will be somewhat higher than 30%. Essential has it anywhere from 34% to 41% depending on the sample size.
Greens have been polling between 7% and 9%.
I personally believe that there will be three “left” seats & three “right” seats. But make up of those will strongly come down the confusing preferences.
I believe the 6th seat will be close.

@Peter Foster:
But we need to take a couple of other things into consideration. Firstly, there are heaps more candidates in WA this time, this will result in a net swing from “major” to “minor” parties. I anticipate total major party vote to drop by 4%. If shared proportionally, this is -1 to -1.5% for Labor. In addition, BludgerTrack is showing ALP will do 0.6% better in terms of swing than nationally, but will still face a swing of -1.9%. So, overall, the ALP vote may will go backwards in the Senate. (In fact, re-running my model with updated numbers shows a 28.0-46.5-11.5 split, with the 46.5% split as per 2010 with 43.0 Lib and 3.5 Nat.

So, even with under one percent, the Democrats have a 5% chance in WA, right ? İ wonder, Truth Seeker, what exact percentage you gave them (clearly under one percent) and whether a higher vote would impact much on their chances ?

An increased Democrats vote is surely possible with The Greens’ decline and recent ABC coverage. İ’m handing out at İstanbul booth and two former WA Greens have mentioned their disenchantment with The Greens – over Aboriginal issues.

Although İ’m no pro at this, İ also calculate that WikiLeaks may very well get up in WA.

(While İ’m a Democrat and would be thrilled to see the Dems return, this isn’t wishful thinking, as İ personally much admire Senator Ludham).

This is my regular “above the line” guide for voting in the senate. It shows you where your vote is likely to end up if you vote above the line, based on a limited set of candidates who have a chance of winning.

I have also run your higher DEM scenario. For the purposes of this simulation, I have assumed a DEM vote of 1.5% +/-33% of this (equivalent to a range of 1-2% primary). This increases their chance of election to 26% (half the gain at expense of Coalition, half at expense of the Greens, while curiously PUP likelihood increases to 12%…)

Bolstering again to 2-3% increases DEM likelihood to 50%. So, 2.5% primary DEM is the point where it becomes more likely than not that they’ll be elected.

But in both cases I think it’s highly unlikely. Confident with a 0.5% estimate.

You need a minimum of 2% to have any reasonable chance of collecting preferences.

The guide published by OzPolitics/Free diver is seriously lacking merit and has left out a number of important consideration not the least the order of exclusion and group percentage.

You are best looking at the historical data and marking adjustments to the percentages in line with the expected swing and using the ABC calculator,

Free divers table is way out and the methodology used is not clear. He has left off Palmer and Wikeleaks and failed to indicate where you vote actually ends up.

The starting base should always be based on the 2010 results and adjustments made from there. I would ignore Ozpolitcs completely Sorry. if he wants to provide his group percentage allocations and methodology used then I could comment further. But it does not reflect were you vote ends up. Victoria is a good example where it is flawed as is WA

Truth.. You have over inflated the Greens. Katter/PUP and the Democrats and under inflated wikileaks. Groups that are well known or well organised tend to secure around 2%. Also the LNP vote will be less due to the Latter/PUP and Shooters

Greens are polling around 8% not 11.5% I suggest you try shifting that to wikileaks and recalculate

d@w, my “methodology” is to use truth’s predictions to restrict the candidate field to those with a chance of winning. Then I show people how the group ticket ranks that restricted field. That’s it. It is not intended to be a prediction of the outcome in the sense that truth’s work is. My intention is that people will use it to check the rankings of the parties that “matter”. You need to scroll up from the link I provided to see the explanation. If the explanations given are unclear or overstate what the information is then I am happy to revise them. Perhaps I am too optimistic, but I hoped people would apply a bit of common sense and check the first few rankings and make sure they are happy with all of them.

The yellow highlighting gets applied to the highest ranking party out of a slightly more restricted set – excluding those that truth indicated have less than 5% chance of winning (these are greyed out).

FreeD Sorry I don’t think your guide helps at all. Prefer to look at the table above to determine distribution.

Again a vote had to end up in one of two parties, the last elected or the wasted quota. (Droop)

TheSpeaker @ 26 I am with you. Whilst I think Wikileaks is in a good position to win against the Greens based on group preference deals in WA I think the media/Green smear spook campaign has diminished its chances of achieving the required 2-3% . They would need to man every both and run heavily on a Wiki not Green agenda. I have not seen them at the pre=poll… So I think they have lost. They should have targeted a few strategic key lower house seats.

As the last week unfolds you gain a feeling for the shifts in the electorate.

I do not share Truth’s assessment of the majors hold 85% of the vote in the Senate. This base is wrong. I would be looking at the bottom end of each parties expectations.

I am also aware that PUP has out-performed KAP and the Nationals.

SexP will continue to retain their base as will the Holy Trinity/four.

All these groups are organised and consistent. They need to be accommodated and this means the majors lose out.

The Greens could not trade or attack preferences as it has nothing to give. This is evident on the registered tickets.

The Greens argument about preference deals is hype. It may resonate with some naive voters.. it is not a reflection of policy or alliance. The Greens have cut a deal with PUP and they are also in contest with them in NSW/Qld. What does that say about the Greens? The ALP preferenced the Greens but are in conflict over Melbourne. The ALP should have issued a split ticket.

If you mean it does not help predict the winners, that is obvious. It is not intended to do that. It is supposed to inform people where their preferences are likely to end up if they vote above the line. It is supposed to answer a very different question – not “who will win?”, but “am I comfortable with what will happen if I vote above the line?”

Sorry I do not think it does that even. In the end there are only two piles. The last elected candidate and the wasted quota. If you want to know where you vote will end up assuming you vote ATL then you look at the table above.

The ALP and the LNP will both elect 2 candidates each. The LNP will most likely elect a 3rd in WA. The issue is will the Greens get 0ver the line or be left holding the Wasted Droop quota. I argue against the Droop quota, I do not see it having any meaningful role in a pure proportional preferential system/. Why divide the cake by 7 and throw away a slice. The rules of the Senate count are in need of major review and reform.

I do not see the Nationals getting elected. Much depends on the level of the ALP surplus and the Greens vote.

Wikileaks can win the seat but it is looking less likely as the campaign come to an end. Wikileaks would have to have a real campaign on the ground and target the Greens and the Anti War message.

Clive Palmer will play a main role. maybe the ALP will get above 37% I think not. The odds are in the Greens favour. Luddy is the better of the Greens but his party is a real shocker. They will keep a progressive non conservative government out of office for decades.

I am of the belief that there will be a double senate election within 12 months if not sooner. We will know on Saturday

I want to again mention my ongoing concern that the AEC is refusing to provide copies of the BTL Preference date-entry data-file. Why? There is no justification to not subject this data file to open transparent independent analysis and review. Refusing to make this file available brings the AEC and the conduct of the Senate count into disrepute. You can not scrutinise an electronic count without access to this data file. It should be published progressively as the count progresses as the the results of the count during the night.

The Greens have done nothing to address flaws in the Senate count. The AEC being the wort offender as they are meant to be an independent professional organisation. Again I ask why is this crucial data file not available for scrutiny?

If the results are close we might get around to addressing the many flaws in the system. flaws that were introduced to facilitate a manual count and no longer required under a computer aided count.

Correction. Whilst other States have finished proportioning out the above the line to Below the line votes WA has not completed this task. The number of BELOW the line votes for RUA and TCS is still unknown. This was my mistake.